1DCA Division 1 Oral Argument - 2025/10/06 - Oct 06, 2025

argument

1DCA Division 1 Oral Argument - 2025/10/06

California First District Court of Appeal 59 min 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What are the procedural basics and parties involved in the Dennis Glazer vs. Sunnyvale Massage oral argument?

0:02

All rise.

Unknown 0:22

Do we have the parties on?

Unknown 0:35

Stan Mallison appears remotely. Okay. Good morning, and please have a seat. I am Justice Langhorne-Wilson, seated to my left. I have Justice Smiley. This is the matter of Dennis Glazer versus Sunnyvale Massage, LLC. May I have appearances, please?

Benjamin Emmer 1:01

Benjamin Emmer, counsel for the appellants.

Stan Mallison 1:05

Good morning. Stan Mallison, Counsel for Respondent.

Unknown 1:09

Good morning. All right. I did want to advise. I do believe there was an agreement that we would go forward with oral argument in the absence of the physical presence of Justice Spankey, who was also on this case. I just want to reassure you that she will be able to review the recording before any decision is made in this matter. And if I could ask the appellant, how much time would you like to reserve for rebuttal?

Benjamin Emmer 1:40

Five minutes, Your Honor.

Unknown 1:41

Five minutes. Okay, great. Thank you. All right. And I would note that we have read your briefs and we're familiar with the arguments. Just by way of summation, it is my understanding that this matter is an appeal of a trial court's finding that the defendants failed to pay wages. This is just a summary, of course. And also a finding that the founder and also GM of the Sunnyvale Massage was personally liable for minimum wage violations. With that, I will begin with appellant. You have the floor.

Benjamin Emmer 2:13

Thank you, Your Honor. Yes, this is, we are appealing the trial court's decision on those two matters, and I want to take them in, I think in reverse order, I think is the simplest way to do this. And I want to start with the court's finding that Ms. Metier was individually liable for the penalties that were assessed by the court. And I hope to not go over everything that is in our briefs, but just hit a couple of the highlights that everybody, appellant and respondent, both agree that the only basis that the court found for assigning individual liability for Ms. Medeiros under Labor Code 1197.1. We both agree that Labor Code Sections 558 and 558.1 don't apply in this. And because the court, it can only have individual liability under 1197.1, there's a necessary requirement that the trial court have found that Ms.

Benjamin Emmer 3:17

Metier intentionally committed the violation that caused her to be held personally liable. The issue in this case is that the court's decision is inconsistent, is not inconsistent, but it is, she found, the trial court specifically found under their fourth cause of action for waiting time penalties under Labor Code Section 203, that there was no willful violation of any statute. And under the Narajo case that we cite repeatedly in our brief, that a finding of no willfulness precludes a finding of intentionality under another labor code provision. The trial court's decision is legally inconsistent, and the finding of no willfulness precludes the finding of intentionality. And so the court committed error in finding no willfulness, but still finding Ms.

Benjamin Emmer 4:24

Metty reliable for the penalties. That part of the decision cannot stand. And I believe that that's a de novo review. It's a legal error, Your Honor, that should be reviewed de novo by this court. And moving on to the second part of my argument, I want to just chat briefly about the second pay system. This is the post-2013 pay system that was in effect from January 1st, 2014 to the end of the claimant's employment. And what the court found in that was that that pay system was essentially, it was a It didn't pay them, plaintiff nor any of the other employees, for all the hours that they worked. And, Your Honor, looking at the evidence that was presented before the trial court, the undisputed evidence that was presented before the trial court, this is a substantial evidence review.

Benjamin Emmer 5:26

I'll acknowledge that. But the only evidence before the court was that this system paid, specifically paid, the plaintiff and everybody else that worked under it for all hours, each and all hours that they worked. It was an hourly system, a common hourly system where an individual clocks in at the beginning of their shift, clocks out at the end, and they're paid what their agreed hourly rate for each hour.